ABSTRACT

Introduction This chapter explores the issue of convergence among disparate approaches to economic issues, both theoretical and practical. By convergence, I mean when two fairly distinct branches of economic thought (either different schools of thought or different strands within a school of thought), which have distinct and discrete developmental, intellectual histories, independently arrive at the same, or very similar, positions on questions of theory, practice, and/or interpretations of observations. Convergence can occur between two strands of economic thought at any time. The significance of convergence for pluralism in economics occurs when at least the members of one strand become aware of the convergence. In a recent article in the Journal of Economic Issues, Philip O’Hara (2007: 5) labeled me as a “Major Heterodox Converger,” which stimulated me to think about the benefits of convergence (Waller 1999, 2005). Some economists react negatively to arguments that there have been examples of convergence among different schools of thought, which have at times been fruitful. Such reactions, which range from taking mild offence to genuine fury and vitriol, are surprising and a bit dispiriting for advocates of economic pluralism and suggest issues that need to be addressed. The basic idea of convergence is exemplified by Oliver E. Williamson’s general observation that institutions are important and his recognizing that John R. Commons (1990 [1934]) had made similar observations (Williamson 1975: 3). What is significant here is that Williamson, at the time of his initial remarks on Commons, would generally have been considered a neoclassical economist and Commons was one of the co-founders of original institutional economics. This is an instance of convergence. Williamson’s (1975) acknowledgment of the shared character of his focus on transactions with Commons became the opportunity for an ongoing dialogue between those who identify their work with the new institutional economics (NIE) and those who identify their work with original institutional economics (OIE). This communication has led to additional areas of convergence between these two strands of economic thought, particularly evidenced by the work of Richard Nelson (2007) and Douglas North (2005), to the mutual benefit of both

strands of thought. Theoretical and conceptual contributions from both strands – such as cumulative causation, path dependency, the role of technology in social change, the significance of routines and habits, and evolutionary processes – are the subject of lively exchanges within and among the participants in these strands of economic thought. It should be noted that in the example above, while Williamson noted the convergence between his ideas and Commons’, he did almost nothing with that observation. His observation of the convergence created the opportunity for others to follow up on his observation. There are many such cases of convergence, but it is not the case that all such occurrences lead to any discernable change in either strand of economic thought. Convergence’s consequences for pluralism in economics then are dependent upon these opportunities being exploited in the larger community of economic discourse. The important question is, under what circumstances are such opportunities likely to be exploited in such a way as to enhance the conversation and enhance pluralism in economics more generally? I suspect there are many such circumstances, as when the stagflation of the 1970s – a problem that was not solvable with conventional theoretical and conceptual apparatus – led to a broader discussion among economists, including exchanges of ideas between mainstream and heterodox economists, and an increase in pluralism within the economics profession (Albelda et al. 1984; Sherman 1976). Indeed, it would be fairly surprising if honest scholars from alternative perspectives never came up with commensurate observations, theories, or conclusions when observing the same behavior, among the same population, in the same culture, around the same time. Thought of in this way, it is surprising that convergence is not noticed more often.